 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Siirila v. State10/13/1999
t stopped his vehicle completely in the roadway under circumstances where there was no requirement that he stop, and where the officer testified that it could have created a hazard, but because of the lack of traffic at that particular time, that single -- a single stop before making a right-hand turn wouldn't result in his pulling the car over. But finally after observing the stops that were not required on two occasions, the crossing over the fog lines, and other circumstances that he testified to, he came to the impression that the driver was either lost or he was impaired.
Judge Brown then ruled that "there was an articulable basis for believing that imminent public danger existed that the defendant was driving impaired."
On appeal, Siirila renews his claim that there was no reasonable suspicion to justify his stop. This court reviews Judge Brown's findings of fact for clear error and decides de novo whether those facts legally justified an investigative stop. A reasonable suspicion - a suspicion with an articulable basis in the totality of the circumstances known to the police officer - that a driver is intoxicated will legally justify an investigative stop.
The reasonable suspicion test does not require the officer to affirmatively negate all other explanations for the observed facts before stopping the driver. It is sufficient that the facts establish a substantial possibility that criminal conduct has occurred, based on some circumstances that differentiate the driver stopped from the motoring public in general. It is not necessary for the officer to wait for the driver to violate a traffic law before stopping him, and the "officer need not 'see [ ] the person he ultimately stops do something dangerous. It is sufficient that the officer observe facts which lead him to reasonably believe that the person to be stopped is dangerous.'"
We conclude that Judge Brown could properly find from the testimony that the totality of the circumstances that the police officer observed constitutes an articulable basis to suspect that Siirila had been driving while intoxicated. During the evening hours, Siirila stopped at an intersection with no controlling stop signs, marked crosswalks, or pedestrian traffic. After observing the stop sign at the next intersection, he turned right, again crossing the fog lines, and then proceeded at a "very slow rate of speed" to the next intersection. There, he again, for no discernable reason, stopped in the lane of traffic "and waited for several seconds before making another right-hand turn." Judge Brown explicitly found that neither traffic conditions nor the presence of pedestrians explained Siirila's driving. His driving was more than merely unusual; it tended to support an inference of criminal activity: driving while intoxicated. While Siirila's actions may have been consistent with innocence, they also gave reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated. We AFFIRM the convictions.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|